Questo sito web utilizza cookie. Continuando a usare e a navigare su questo sito, accetti l'utilizzo dei cookie.
Chiudi
Sapevi che il tracking dei voli di FlightAware è supportato dalla pubblicità?
Puoi aiutarci a mantenere FlightAware gratuito accettando gli annunci pubblicitari di FlightAware.com. Ci impegniamo per far sì che i nostri annunci siano pertinenti e discreti per offrire la migliore esperienza. Aggiungere gli annunci ammessi su FlightAware è facile e veloce oppure puoi prendere in considerazione i nostri account premium.
Chiudi
Back to Squawk list
  • 33

Center Of Gravity Concerns Lead To Lufthansa Pulling Last Economy Row On A320neo

Aggiunto
 
German national flag carrier Lufthansa has stopped selling the last row of seats in its Airbus A320neos due to concerns over the aircraft’s center-of-gravity limitations. (simpleflying.com) Altro...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


timhaight
Tim Haight 5
OMG you mean you cant cram an extra 20 seats on an plane and make all that money! Maybe the manufacturer already did the numbers or it would have come that way.
nasdisco
Chris B 4
Cargo before people I presume?
raleedy
ALLAN LEEDY 2
Wouldn’t you?
tomcat1965
The take away here is that the Airbus 321NEO has a an MCAS like system much like the MAX for quite similar issues...if not almost identical issues. The difference is that Airbus' software works and Boeing' didnt. That said....if this were a Boeing aircraft...the world would be screaming at the top of it's collective lungs that the airframe is inherently unstable, unsafe, and not airworthy. But it's Airbus, so people just joke about it...and shrug it off as a non-issue. Blocking off the last row of seats due to center of gravity concerns is no laughing matter.
raleedy
ALLAN LEEDY 3
Aren’t you missing a few crashes and deaths in your comparison?
tomcat1965
The two crashes were due to the flawed MCAS software system...and had nothing to do with the airframe's integrity or stability. There but for the grace of the God goes Airbus. Boeing crapped the bed with their flawed software. Airbus is now crapping their pants because they have very similar flight characteristic issues with the NEO as Boeing has with the MAX. And these issues were not properly addressed during airframe certification apparently. Airbus is thanking its lucky stars that Boeing crapped the bed first....and that they can learn from that. Again...this is a fairly serious issue. Does this make the A321NEO inherently unstable? No l, it isn't in my book. If we apply the MAX rule of popular commentary and opinion, then Yes. I wouldn't treat this matter lightly.
timhaight
Tim Haight 2
I hate to break it to you, but Boeing didn't write the software. They bought the avionics that had already been certified by the FAA as airworthy. With that said, Boeing designed their plane around promises made by the companies who built it and it flailed. Boeing being the manufacturer will be held liable because they built the Airplane, while in reality it's the avionics manufacturer that should be held to the fire not Boeing.
SkyAware123
SkyAware123 2
First you say Airbus's version of MCAS works.. Now you say Airbus is crapping their pants.. Are you just here to get attention ? Pretending you know something but you don't ?
timhaight
Tim Haight 1
Sorry sky I think your comments were directed at someone else, I never said anything about airbuss
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 2
When my plastic model Tristar and DC10 were too tail heavy to stand on the undercart I just glued some nuts in the nosewheel bay. Why can't Lufthansa put a couple of John Deere 100lb suitcase weights in the electronics bay for each pax at the back of economy.
speshulk99
john kilcher 1
Your post really takes the boob prize.
raleedy
ALLAN LEEDY 3
Why not just upgrade a few fat people?
sgbelverta
sharon bias 1
Not just fat people. I fly yesterday with my leg in a cast. I would have loved to have a bathroom with a little more room to handle my jumbo leg. Same flight had a lady in a wheel chair. We were last off, and she mentioned she needed to go directly to a restroom after deplaning because her Depends leaked. This can be a health and safety issue.
jptq63
jptq63 2
Why not just pull those 2 rows of seats out and add some leg room?
SkyAware123
SkyAware123 2
Uhm, then it wouldn't fix the imbalance.. duh.
jptq63
jptq63 2
The ARM and weight would change, so would the CG (albeit by how much, I do not know); how does one calculate the CG on these?
SkyAware123
SkyAware123 2
No, you are reducing weight but it's still spread out the same way across the plane. Won't work.
timhaight
Tim Haight 1
You need to have three things, first the arm (the distance from the cg) next you need to know the weight of the objects. These will allow you to calculate the moment, with all the numbers now available you are able to calculate the new CG.
timhaight
Tim Haight 1
Maybe I'm confused here, but I was under the impression that this thread was about CG concerns over excessive rows of seating being installed in a carrier's aircraft that has led to concerns of putting the aircraft into a negitive CG condition that could possibly effect the flight characteristics and result in possible loss of the aircraft and its passengers.
The manufacture designs and builds their products to a certain function and performance range their customers will buy. Regardless of what the end mission the aircraft performs, it must still be configured so that the flight characteristics fall within the design limitations the airworthynees certification was approved for. When it is modified or altered in anyway it no longer meets the airworthynees certificate issued by countries aviation officials and must either be recertified as experimental or brought back into compliance with the original airworthynees certificate.
In this case, when extra seats were installed in the rear of the aircraft, the added weight of seating and passengers, moved the center of gravity CG aft or towards the rear of the aircraft. By doing this it can make the aircraft pitch (up and down movement) uncontrollable, or not controllable enough to remain in the air, thus destroying the aircraft and most likely killing everyone aboard.
The pitiful part here, the whole exercise is about nothing more than money, the money that goes into their pockets in the form of profits. This is the same old lame story we have all heard many times before, it's a story a company and their profits vs the public at large and how many of us they can endanger before they cross the line and it kills a lot of us.
GBCUA1K
Greg Cotten 0
I always find these threads interesting and funny to read, as the general public, and even aviation enthusiasts, often show their technical ignorance in their comments.

Engineering a complex system of systems such as a modern airliner or a nuclear power plant is a constant learning process. Anyone that thinks some third party certificate, FAA in this instance, means fool proof airworthiness, should really pull their head out. At best it is Probabilistic estimate that in most cases, with decently trained crew, things will be ok...but human error in design, manufacturing, testing, certification, maintenance, and finally operations continue to show the world that nothing is fool proof or 100% safe under all conditions.

The general tennis match of blame is a bit childish, folks will always debate B v. A, just as they do Chevy v. Ford.

In my opinion, Effort should be focused on learning from mishaps and making constant process improvements in engineering and operations
pilot62
Scott Campbell -1
the first A320 to fly passengers flew right into a Forrest after not being able to maintain altitude for those of you who think there's any difference between A and B - take a look at how many 47's have crashed or triple 7's - both companies have cultural issues, For crying out loud Airbus built the A380 after Boeing knew the 4 engine was dead and missed the boat as well with 747-8 other then they already had the fuselage
williambaker08
william baker 1
This has nothing to do with the 777. The few that did crash were not caused by the planes themselfs but by either weather or pilot error except for BA38 which was a fuel oil heat exchanger. As far the A380 it was built for hub to hub travel but Airlines and passangers wanted point to point. And the 747-8 was built primarly for a freighter verison rather then passanger if im not mistaken.
williambaker08
william baker 1
Passenger not Passanger sorry.
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 1
Air France Flight 296 crashed due to a series of human errors and not due to an inability to maintain altitude. The accident and its cause are well documented.
Jackx9
Don Quixote -2
NOT FLYING!
cielilund
Cieli Lund -2
Very upset to learn that one of my flights from OGG to PHX is on A321neo. Very unnerving that Am Airlines is ok flying these planes.
pilot62
There is a cruise ship that returns to LA
SkyAware123
SkyAware123 1
walk/hitchhike... see if it gets you there safer.
williambaker08
william baker 0
But what about swimming or even a rowboat. Lol.

Accedi

Non hai un account? Registrati adesso (è gratis) per usufruire di funzioni personalizzate, allarmi voli e molto altro!